The problem: it's not all that scary.
The first sequel, 1977's "The Exorcist II: Heretic" is universally reviled as one of the worst movies ever made. So I wouldn't blame you if you've never given "The Exorcist III" much thought.
Give it some thought.
First, it's barely a sequel. Based on Blatty's tangentially related novel "Legion," the story veers in a wildly different direction from the original source material. Very little pre-knowledge of the first novel/film is required.
Second, it's directed by the original writer. Now, I'm the world's biggest Stephen King fan so I know that novelists becoming film directors is, at best, a dicey proposition. But Blatty is in complete control of the material here. He's got an actual cinematic eye that most writers lack.
Third, it's essentially an arthouse horror movie. It's the only modern(ish) American horror film I can think of that revolves around a number of extended, poetic monologues (by Brad Dourif, no less). Some people may find this pretentious, but I eat it up every time I see it. This is a WRITER's movie in a way few horror films are.
Fourth — and most important — it's frickin scary. The long wide shot in the hallway with the nurse is almost Hitchcockian in the way it slowly and deliberately ratchets up the tension until it explodes in a sudden, heart-stopping shock. The shot of the old woman climbing the walls like a spider tips right into the Uncanny Valley. And Blatty manages to build a mood of atmospheric oppressiveness throughout that can become nearly unbearable.
Fifth, George C. Scott. 'Nuff said.
Sure, it's a little silly and dated in spots. But I love the ambition and uncompromising nature of this movie. It barely even nods at the commercial horror marketplace of the early 1990s. It's a movie for grownups, and it works hard to separate itself from its predecessors and be its own thing. Blatty was in fine form here, and it's worth a re-evaluation.
No comments:
Post a Comment